Jones v. Alliance Credit Union et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
No. 5:25-CV-093-H
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND R-ECOMMENDATIONS OF TIM MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND OVERRULING THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) of
United States Magistrate Judge Amanda'Amy' R. Burch (Dkt. No. 23). Judge Burch
concludes that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, therefore, recommends
denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in fotma pauperis QFP) (Dkt. No. 14) and
dismissing this action without prejudice. The plaintifftimely filed objections to the FCR
(Dkt. Nos. 24; 25).
The Court ovemrles the objections and adopts the FCR in full. The plaintiffhas
failed to assert a federal question or complete diversity between the parties in his complaint
or objections. Accordingly, the Court denies the plaintiffs application to proceed IFP (Dkt.
No. 14) and dismisses the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
1. Background
A. Factual Background and Procedural History
On April 25,2025, the plaintiffflled suit against Alliance Credit Union, an Alliance
employee, Amber Cook, and Alliance's attomey, Robert St. Clair. Dkt. No. 1. He
RICHARD M. JONES,
Plaintitr,
AILIANCE CREDIT UNION, et aI.,
Defendants.
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

concurrently filed a motion for leave to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 2. Per the Court's standing
orders, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Burch. Dkt. No. 3.
After reviewing the initial complaint and application to proceed IFP, Judge Burch
determined that she could not rule on the application to proceed IFP because the plaintiffs
complaint did not meet the minimum pleading requtements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). Sae Dkt. No. 12. Among other deficiencies, the plaintiffdid not plead "a
short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court's jurisdiction. " Id. at 2-3; see alsoFed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Accordingly, Judge Burch ordered the plaintiff to fi.le an amended
complaint curing the deficiencies and a proper application to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 12 at 4
The plaintiff complied and filed an amended complaint and application. Dkt. Nos.
13; 14. With respect to jurisdiction, the plaintiff asserts that the Court has federal-question
subject-matter jurisdiction because he "raises federal questions involving trust law, secured
party starus, enforcement of unrebutted affidavits, and equitable remedy under the Uniform
Commercial Code as adopted federally." Dkt. No. 13 at 4. He also cites to the federal
Declaratory Judgment Act (FDJA), 28 U.S.C. $ 2201, and the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), 9 U.S.C. $ 9, in support of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See rd
As to the substance of his claims, the plaintiff asserts that, upon submission of "two
secured financial applications" to Alliance, the defendants "accepted the applications but
dishonored [the p]lainriffs settlement instruments, refused to retum or disclose records, and
failed to cure after repeated lawful notices." Id. at 5-6. The plaintiffbrings a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty and also seeks various remedies including damages, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, enforcement of a "private" arbitration award, an "equitable lien and
constructive trust," and default judgment. See id. at 7-8. As Judge Burch noted, Dkt. No.
2
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

23 atl,the plaintiff appears to assert that he is a sovereign citizen. See general/y Dkt. Nos. l;
13.
B. Judge Burch's FCR
After reviewing the plaintiffs amended filings, Judge Burch concluded that the
plaintiff had again failed to make allegations that would provide adequate grounds for
federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Sea Dkt. No. 23 at 3-5. More specifically, none of the
plaintiffs asserted avenues for relief-the FDJA, the FAA, or his state-law claim for breach
offiduciary dury and requests for equitable reliefand a default judgement-provide a basis
for federal-question jurisdiction . Id. at 5. Nor has he alleged complete diversity between the
parties. Id. Accordiagly, Judge Burch recommends dismissal of the action without
prejudice for lack of subject-mauer jurisdiction.
The plaintiff flted two identical documents objecting to the FCR, with one including
a notice to Judge Burch of "spiritual liabiliry and commercial fraud." Saa Dkt. Nos. 24; 25;
25-1. The plaintiffs objections are largely based on sovereign-citizen rhetoric-that his
claims are govemed by a "superior" jurisdiction and divine Law. See generally Dkt. Nos. 24;
25. He does not contest Judge Burch's conclusions that the bases for federal jurisdiction in
his complaint do not confer federal-question jurisdiction, but instead now asserts that his
cause of action is rooted in federal commercial, constitutional, and banking law, including
the Truth in Lending Act, l5 U.S.C. $ 1605. See Dkt. No. 24 at 2-3.
2. Legal Standard
A parry who seeks to object to any part of a Magistrate Judge's FCR must frle
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C.
$ 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P.72b)Q). As for portions where no specific objections are filed
-3
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations only for plain enot. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs &
Border Prot.,975 F .3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020).
When a party frles objecrions, the Court must review those objected-to portions de
novo. 28 U.S.C. 0 636@)(1); Kreimerman r Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V.'22F.3d634,646
(sth Cir. 1994). The district court may then accept, reject, or modifu the recommendations
or findings, in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72@X3). Objections to the FCR mustbe
"specific"; they must "put the district court on notice of the urged enor." Williams v. K&B
Equip.Co.,724F.2d508,5II(5thCir. I984). "[A]nobjectionmustidentifuthespecific
finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specifu the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. " Thompson r. Bumpas,No.4:22-CY-640,2022WL 1758527l, at*|
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 12,2022) (citng United States v. Marhis,458 F. Supp. 3d 559, 564 (8.D.
Tex.2020)).
The district court need not consider "[flrivolous, conclusive[,] or general objections."
Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834F .2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted).
Moreover, "[i]t is well settled that issues raised for the fust time in objections to a magistrate
judge's report are deemed not properly before the district court ." K Invs., Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd.,
No. 2l-40642, 2022WL 964210, at *5 (5th Cir. Mar. 30,2022) (fust citing Cupit v. Whitle!,
28 F.3d 532, 535-36 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994); then citing United States v. Atmstrong,951F.2d 626,
630 (5th Cn. 1992); and then citrrrg Harison r Smith,83 F. App'x 630,632 (5th Cir. 2003).
4
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

3. Analysis
The Court ovemrles the plaintiffs objections and affirms the FCR il full.
Judge Burch details why the plaintiffs purported claims that reference the FDJA and
the FAA and also seek an equitable lien, a constructive trust, and a default judgment do not
confer jurisdiction on this Court. SeeDlt. No.23 at4. Judge Burch also concludes that the
plaintiff has not alleged diversity jurisdicion. See id. The plaintiff does not object to these
legal conclusions, but generally objects to Judge Burch's conclusion that he does not assert a
federal question. SeeDkl No.24at2-3. The Court has reviewed these unobjected-to
portions of the FCR for plain enor. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts those
portions of the FCR.
The plaintiffs objection that the magistate judge "erroneously claimed no federal
question exists" is not specific and unsupported by legal authority or citation to his
complaint or Judge Burch's FCP.. See id. at2. And his new assertions that his case presents
a federal question based on federal commercial, constitutional, or banking law are presented
for the fust time in his objections and not properly before the Court. See K lnts.,2022 WL
964210, at *5. Even so, the Court concludes that these objections are frivolous, conclusive,
and fail to confer subject-matter jurisdiction. Finally, the remainder of the plaintiffs
objections do not address Judge Burch's FCR at all and instead include only restatements of
contentions made in his complaint and nonsensical "Maxims of Law." SeeDkt. No. 24 at
3-9. Accordingly, the Court ovemrles the plaintiffs objections.
4. Conclusion
In sum, the Court overrules the plaintiffs objections (Dkt. Nos. 24; 25) and adopts
the FCR @kt. No. 23) as the findings of this Court. Accordingly, the Court denies the
-5
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

plaintiffs application to proceed IFP (Dkt. Nos. 2; 6; 14), terminates all other pending
motions@kt.Nos.5;7;10 16;17;19;27),anddismissestheactionwithoutprejudicefor
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
So ordered onFebruary Z1 ,2926
JAME SLEY HENDRIX
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
Case 5:25-cv-00093-H-BV Document 32 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>